Allowed

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2024WP/18242/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, transferred from an Assistant Teacher post to a First Division Assistant post, sought pay protection and pension service continuity. The High Court directed the Directorate of Municipal Administration to consider the claim for pay scale protection and pension counting within three months.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's request for protection of pay scale and counting of services for pension within three months.

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18242 OF 2018 (S-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR B S S/O SRINIVASAPPA AGED 29 YEARS WORKING AS FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT MYSORE CITY CORPORATION

¶8

MYSORE - 570001

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶13

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION V V TOWER DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶15

BANGALORE - 560001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION

¶17

MYSORE - 570001.

¶18

THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC, AGA FR R1, R2 AND R4; SMT. GEETHADEVI M PAPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT HIM THE PAY-PROTECTION ON THE BASIS OF THE LAST PAY DRAWN BY HIM AND TO CONTINUE THE KGID, GPF & GIS ACCOUNTS IN TERMS OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY HIM ON 21.03.2017 AND 01.09.2017 TO THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURES-K AND M, WITHIN THE TIME FRAME SPECIFIED BY THIS COURT.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner, who is working as First Division Assistant with the third respondent, has filed this petition for directions to the respondents to grant him pay protection on the basis of the last pay drawn by him as an Assistant Teacher with the Department of Public Instructions and to continue all other benefits in terms of the different representations filed by him.

¶26

The petitioner, in seeking these directions

¶27

as against the respondents, is in effect requesting this Court to direct the second respondent to consider his different representations. Sri V.B.Vijay Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶30

submits that the following would be the indisputable facts.

¶31

[a] The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant

¶32

Teacher with the Department of Public

¶33

Instructions on 01.06.2010 and with the notification being issued by the Karnataka Public Services Commission [ KPSC ] to fill up, amongst others, the vacant posts of First Division Assistant with the various

¶34

departments of the State Government, the petitioner participated in the selection process after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the competent.

¶35

[b] The petitioner is successful in his participation inasmuch as he figured in the Final Selection List dated 24.10.2016 and he is issued with the appointment order on 05.12.2016. The petitioner has requested to be relieved under Rule 252-B of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules [ KCSR ], and

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶38

he is accordingly relieved on 14.12.2016 and

¶39

he has reported to work with the second respondent who has later assigned him to the third respondent.

¶40

Sri V.B.Vijay Kumar submits that in view

¶41

of the provisions of Rule 41A of the KCSR, the petitioner would be entitled for protection of his scale of pay as an Assistant Teacher, and in this regard, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner, as of the date of his appointment, was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs.15,600/- when the pay scale attached to the posts of First Division Assistant was in a sum of Rs.13,600/- - Rs.26,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would also be entitled for counting of his service as an Assistant Teacher for the purposes of computation of pension as is contemplated under Rule 252-B of the KCSR.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶44

Sri Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions. Sri Prince Isac submits that the second respondent will consider, subject to all just exceptions, the petitioner's request for pay protection in accordance with the provisions of Rule 41-A of the KCSR, and insofar as counting the petitioner's services as an Assistant Teacher for the purposes of pension, Sri Prince Isac submits that such request will have to be necessarily considered in the light of the relevant provisions of the KCSR.

¶45

On a careful consideration of the rival submissions, this Court is of the of considered view that the petition must be disposed of, without expressing any merit on the rival claims, but directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim expeditiously in a time bound manner. However, this Court must observe that the petitioner's request must be considered not just in

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:27616 WP No. 18242 of 2018

¶47

the light of the provisions now referred but also any other documents that the petitioner may furnish in support of his claim. Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

[A] The petition is allowed directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request for protection of pay scale and counting of his services as an Assistant Teacher for the purposes of pension within

¶50

a period of three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶51

[B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order along with further documents within a period of four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

SA ct:sr

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Santhosh Kumar B S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Gowramma a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manikanta. N Vs the Honble High Court of Karnataka

Sri C N Narayan Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Dr Chandrakumar S G S/O Late S H Giriyaiah Vs State of Karnataka

K.M. Vedamurthy Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., (Bescom)

M Sundar Vs the Commissioner